and many more benefits!

Find us on Facebook

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Show Tags

HideShow timer Statistics

Regional population expansion, particularly in suburban municipalities that can attract large corporations to open new offices, can frequently overwhelm the city’s municipal services, such as waste disposal, electricity, and water supply. Since it typically takes several months to train a new city employee, it would be wise for municipalities to have mandated additional worker capacity for vital services to act as a temporary buffer in the event of rapid population growth. However, such a policy is unlikely given that the current budgets of the vast majority of municipalities could not absorb that immediate additional expense.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Tax revenue generated from new residents is typically collected in the subsequent year.

(B) Tax incentives are one of the most common means communities use to lure corporations to open offices.

(C) Several small municipalities have accommodated significant population expansions without an interruption of vital services.

(D) New residents are more likely to vote on local ballot measures involving the quality of vital services.

Show Tags

30 Apr 2016, 01:17

argument: - Municipalities do not have enough budget to absorb the expense of hiring new workers in Buffer pool and thus the policy cannot be passed.the question stem asks to strengthen the argument. This means that only way this can be achieved is by reducing the pool of funds available to Municipalities.

Show Tags

Regional population expansion results in increase of the city’s municipal services.

Since it typically takes several months to train a new city employee, it would be wise to have mandated additional worker capacity.

However, such a policy is unlikely given that the current budgets of the vast majority of municipalities could not absorb that immediate additional expense.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(B) Tax incentives are one of the most common means communities use to lure corporations to open offices............. This statement is in general and does not help us strengthen why policy is unlikely. OFS

(C) Several small municipalities have accommodated significant population expansions without an interruption of vital services.........This again explains another scenario without mentioning the worker capacity. OFS

(D) New residents are more likely to vote on local ballot measures involving the quality of vital services....This indicates a possibility where additional workers are needed and it might be difficult to manage without them. Budget constraint is not again taken into the account and even then this sounds as a weakener.

I got stuck between A and E.

(A) Tax revenue generated from new residents is typically collected in the subsequent year..........This seems to strengthen the cause and is a very tempting choice.

(E) When financially strained, municipalities will typically cut non-vital services before cutting vital services...........Strained situation is a special scenario and current situation may not be so severe in nature and just tight not recommending addition of workforce._________________

The only time you can lose is when you give up. Try hard and you will suceed.Thanks = Kudos. Kudos are appreciated

Show Tags

I think the answer should be option A. My analysis of the problem is as follows:

Conclusion : The policy is not likely to be passed because municipality can't absorb the extra amount.

Basis for the conclusion :

1) As population increases , the strain on municipality also increases.

2) The aforementioned situation calls for maintaining a buffer of trained people for tackling the additional strain.

Question Stem : We need to strengthen the argument

Pre - thinking step : If I can prove that extra money is not available to the municipality then my argument will be strengthened.

(A) Tax revenue generated from new residents is typically collected in the subsequent year. ---> Points towards lack of funds for the current year , and this option is on the lines of our pre - thought process.

(B) Tax incentives are one of the most common means communities use to lure corporations to open offices. ---> Fails to address the issue at hand

(C) Several small municipalities have accommodated significant population expansions without an interruption of vital services. ---> Goes against our argument !

(D) New residents are more likely to vote on local ballot measures involving the quality of vital services. ---> Irrelevant

Show Tags

30 Apr 2016, 06:56

Regional population expansion, particularly in suburban municipalities that can attract large corporations to open new offices, can frequently overwhelm the city’s municipal services, such as waste disposal, electricity, and water supply. Since it typically takes several months to train a new city employee, it would be wise for municipalities to have mandated additional worker capacity for vital services to act as a temporary buffer in the event of rapid population growth. However, such a policy is unlikely given that the current budgets of the vast majority of municipalities could not absorb that immediate additional expense.

Conclusion is .....it would be wise for municipalities to have mandated additional worker capacity for vital services to act as a temporary buffer in the event of rapid population growth.

The counter premise to this conclusion is "such a policy is unlikely given that the current budgets of the vast majority of municipalities could not absorb that immediate additional expense."

Basically, counter premise is provided to protect the argument against weakeners and any thing supporting this counter-premise will support the argument.

Show Tags

30 Apr 2016, 07:24

1

This post receivedKUDOS

With (A) as well....

If tax revenue for this year is collected next year , then the additional expenses will have to be borne by last years revenue ( this years Budget ) , and the municipalities are not in a position to absorb the expenses of additional worker ...

Thus IMHO (A) strengthens the arguement..._________________

Thanks and Regards

Abhishek....

PLEASE FOLLOW THE RULES FOR POSTING IN QA AND VA FORUM AND USE SEARCH FUNCTION BEFORE POSTING NEW QUESTIONS

Show Tags

EMPOWERgmat Official ExplanationType: StrengthenBoil It Down: Extra city workers good, but city can’t affordMissing Information: Relevance of current budgets. What about the future budget in light of new residents?Goal: Strengthen questions require us to select an option that helps reinforce the underlying logic of the argument. It’s important to note that a correct option in a Strengthen question need not definitively prove the argument, but rather add reinforcement to a weak aspect of an argument’s reasoning. In this case, the argument focuses on the financial commitments of current budgets, and ignores the total fiscal impact of new residents. Specifically, the argument only focuses on the expense of new residents, but what about possible tax revenue generated by these new residents (particularly if they’re moving to these communities for specific job opportunities)? In that case, the revenue from the new residents as they arrive could more than cover the necessary fiscal requirements to support additional municipal employees.

(A) Tax revenue generated from new residents is typically collected in the subsequent year.Yes! Since the argument is making the case that these municipalities cannot afford to maintain extra vital services staff, this option reinforces that claim by pointing out that the revenue collected from the new residents is unlikely to be received until the subsequent year, thus having additional vital services staff could create a problematic intermediate budgetary shortfall.From a GMAT CR argument standpoint, this option is showing that when an argument omits a likely challenge (revenue from new residents can cover new expenses), the way to strengthen the argument is to reduce the likelihood that the challenge is a possibility.

(B) Tax incentives are one of the most common means communities use to lure corporations to open offices.What's attracting new companies to these municipalities is of absolutely no relevance to an argument dealing with how to pay for services that new residents require. That’s a completely different topic from the one the argument is discussing.

(C) Several small municipalities have accommodated significant population expansions without an interruption of vital services.Nope. Besides the fact that an option hinting at the possibility municipalities CAN maintain vital services with an influx of new residents runs counter to the argument, this option commits a classic GMAT test-writer technique: mentioning what “some” do when it’s not clear how meaningful “some” is to the totality of the issue. Even though this option is a 180, let’s experiment. Let’s say that the option actually said that some municipalities have had trouble maintaining vital services during influxes of new residents. Would there be any way to know that “some” communities are representative of municipalities in general? No. Let alone the municipalities in question in this argument.

(D) New residents are more likely to vote on local ballot measures involving the quality of vital services.Even though this option attempts to show that new residents take some degree of interest in local policy, it’s not clear how an interest in local affairs actually impacts the quality of service or the challenges associated with supporting excess vital services workers. This option is Out of Focus.

(E) When financially strained, municipalities will typically cut non-vital services before cutting vital services. This option touches on a possible factor that could soften the force of the argument. If municipalities can find ways to cover vital services in the face of an influx of new residents by trimming non-vital services, that would weaken the overall magnitude of the challenge the argument centers on when we’re tasked to reinforce it._________________

Show Tags

30 Jun 2017, 17:42

now, after rereading the passage, I now fully understand. The argument talks about the business of government services. (municipal refers to government body) The plan is all about how the government deal with the strain on supplying services to growing population. A talks about why the plan is likely to fail because the government will not find funds to cover immediate costs.

MBA Acceptance Rate by Undergraduate Major Many applicants may wonder if their undergraduate major impacts their chance of getting into business school. Admissions data suggests that your college major...